Creating Affinity - Vibrant · used for creating affinity in social relationships, overlapping, in...

odair giraldin vibrant v.8 n.2

Creating AffinityFormal Friendship and Matrimonial Alliances Among the Jê People and the Apinaje Case

Prof. Dr. Odair Giraldin Federal University of Tocantins – UFT

ResumoNeste artigo apresenta-se uma discussão sobre a relação entre a amizade

formal e um sistema matrimonial entre os Apinaje. Inicia com uma discussão

sobre a amizade formal entre os povos Jê, apresentando semelhanças e

diferenças existentes entre os vários povos daquela família lingüística. Em

seguida, após expor as descrições da amizade formal apinaje realizadas por

Nimuendajú e DaMatta, propõe-se um modelo da transmissão da amizade

formal entre os Apinaje. Finalmente, procura-se mostrar que a relação de

amizade formal recria um sistema virtual de metades e argumenta, com base

em dados etnográficos, que a amizade formal é utilizada como um elemento

afinizador, sobrepondo-se, em alguns casos, à consangüinidade.

Palavras chave: amizade formal; Apinajé; etnologia sul-americana; Jê

AbstractThis article analyzes the link between formal friendship and a matrimonial

system among the Apinaje people. Starting with an analysis of formal

friendship among the Jê, it presents existing similarities and differences

among various peoples in the same linguistic family. Then, after describing

the Apinaje’s formal friendship formed by Nimuendajú and DaMatta, a

formal friendship transmission model among the Apinaje is proposed.

Finally, the paper shows that formal friendship recreates a virtual system of

moieties, and based on ethnographic data argues that formal friendship is

used for creating affinity in social relationships, overlapping, in some cases,

consanguinity.

Keywords: Formal Friendship; Apinaje; South American ethnology; Jê people


Creating AffinityFormal Friendship and Matrimonial Alliances Among the Jê People and the Apinaje Case

Prof. Dr. Odair Giraldin Federal University of Tocantins – UFT

Introduction

When ethnographic data about the Jê people became available in the 1930’s

and 40’s through Nimuendajú’s writings (for ex. 1939; 1946), the kinship ter-

minology enabled their classification into the Crow and Omaha system. In

Lévi-Strauss’ studies, especially in the classic Elementary Structures of Kinship

(1949-1982), peoples with a Crow-Omaha system were classified as semi-com-

plex societies, with non-elementary kinship structures.

It is important to remember that in societies with elementary structures,

matrimonial alliances are defined by the “relationship method” (Viveiros de

Castro, 1993:152), through the levels of kinship between partners (marriage

between cross cousins), enabling an exchange of wives between two groups

(restricted exchange, also enabling exchanges of brothers), or through the

“class method” (Idem), in a series of exchanging groups, respectively donors

and receivers of wives (general exchange).

It must be said that in these types of societies, the allied group inherits

the alliance. In societies with non-elementary kinship structures, marriage is

not defined by exchanges among groups but rather according to interests be-

tween persons or units that form alliances based on parameters that are not

related to kinship, and are not alliances that can be inherited.

In a subsequent study, Lévi-Strauss himself revised this position, show-

ing that even in complex societies there are alliances that are formed among

moral persons, such as royal families, for example, in a type he called “House

societies” (sociétés à maison) (Lévi-Strauss [1984] 1991).

Héritier (1989) followed the same path in her studies about semi-complex

societies, demonstrating how in semi-complex societies it is possible to use

an “elementary” base with a system of sibling exchanges (Héritier, 1989:47).

403

vibrant v.8 n.2 odair giraldin

Marriage arrangements among the Apinaje1, according to Nimuendajú,

occur through matrimonial exchanges among four exogamic groups, the

four Kiyê (which I prefer to spell hikjê). This information made the Apinaje

an anomaly among the Jê people of Central Brazil and throughout the world.

But, in addition to marriage among the four hikjê, Nimuendajú also in-

dicated that the Apinaje also had a marriage prohibition between parallel

and cross cousins, people who among themselves would be in a “piwkwa”

position (MZD and FBD) for an Ego male and in a “kamy” position (MZS and

MBS) for an Ego female (Nimuendajú, [1939] 1983:58).

When DaMatta analyses the data about the four hikjê of Nimuendajú, he

affirms that in the entire genealogy of that society, an indicative standard of

regular exchanges between the groups defined as hikjê cannot be found. For

DaMatta, the genealogic data show that the Apinaje are a “typically bilateral

group in which marriages have nothing to do with preferences” (DaMatta,

1976a:137). DaMatta reports that when asked whether it would be good to

marry with wives from the other moieties or not, interviewees emphatically

affirmed “No! We always choose the wives!” (DaMatta, 1976a:137).

Since the Jê people have Crow-Omaha systems and can thus be classified

as non-elementary, according to Lévi-Strauss ([1949] 1982), because they have

no rules concerning marriage between cross-cousins, this presupposition

could have influenced DaMatta’s interpretation of the Apinaje case, leading

him to affirm that “there are no ideologies nor statistic facts indicating a pre-

scriptive matrimonial system” (DaMatta, 1976a:137).2

However, as early as 1960, Maybury-Lewis drew attention to a possible

matrimonial system among Apinaje people different from the one described

by Nimuendajú. For Maybury-Lewis (1960:199), marriages among the Apinaje

were not regulated by the four-group system described by Nimuendajú (the

so called four kiyê), nor determined by the descent system. Analyzing the

data provided by Nimuendajú, Maybury-Lewis argued that there were both

statistical and structural reasons indicating that the Apinaje did not have a

matrimonial system based on the four hikjê.

1 I use the spelling of Apinajé with ”j” and not “y”, as they are traditionally known in the literature, according to how they themselves write their ethnonym.

2 Perhaps this is also why Manuela Carneiro da Cunha said that formal friendship has no relation with marriage (Carneiro da Cunha, 1978:77). She, however, noted that there were cases of fathers-in-law and sons-in-laws or mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law who were formal friends.

404


Since the alliance is not formed through the four hikjê, Maybury-Lewis

hypothesizes that there would be, among the Apinaje, a system of alliances

based on two sections, but in this case they coincide with two moities. He

presents many indicators that point to a system of exogamic moiety al-

liances. The first one is that the Apinaje are a Timbira Group, speaking a

Jê language and with a moieties system, which characterizes the other Jê-

speaking groups. Since there are exogamic moieties described for other

Jê groups (Maybury-Lewis cites the Eastern Timbira, the Xerente and the

Kaingang, in addition to exogamic Xavante and Bororo clans and exogamic

moities). Because there are exogamic moieties described in other Jê groups,

he postulates that the Apinaje may also have this system (Maybury-Lewis,

1960:201). A second indicator can be verified in the kinship terminology,

characteristic of a two-moiety system. Comparing the Apinaje terminology

with other Timbira terminology, Maybury-Lewis argues that the differences

between them are variations in the same Crow-Type terminological structure

(Maybury-Lewis, 1960:210).

Another indication made by Maybury-Lewis that the Apinaje have an alli-

ance system between exogamous moieties, is the correlation between the sys-

tem and the transmission of hikjê formal friendship. The Ego male’s formal

friends, according to Nimuendajú’s description, would be a male of the same

hikjê and a female of the Ego’s mother’s hikjê. Maybury-Lewis also indicates

that in Apinaje myth, the Sun and Moon are formal friends and embody the

moieties Koti and Kore who are, conceptually, formal friends. Maybury-

Lewis thus affirms that the relations among Apinaje’s formal friends link

people belonging to complementary moieties. So, as in many societies, the

ceremonial obligations between moieties also correspond to obligations of

reciprocal marriage, Maybury-Lewis concludes that the Apinaje marriage

system is regulated not by hikjê but by an exogamic moieties system, which

he believed to be matrilinear.3

DaMatta followed the Maybury-Lewis’s hypothesis when considering the

four hikjê as residuals of the Apinaje kinship system. His work has shown

that the four ceremonial groups presented by Nimuendajú are limited to two

groups that form the pair of Hipôknhõxwynh and Ixkrénhõxwynh moieties.

3 He says: “We have therefore grounds for supposing that marriage among the Apinayé was regulated by a system of matrilineal exogamous moieties” (Maybury-Lewis, 1960:212).

405


Apart from this misunderstanding by Nimuendajú, DaMatta also verified

that the krã-ô-mbedy and krékára, which were considered to be two exo-

gamic groups by the German ethnologist, were in fact the names of specific

decorations, respectively, of Hipôknhõxwynh and Ixkrénhõxwynh moieties

presented by a formal friend.

Even though he has followed Maybury-Lewis’ hypothesis when consider-

ing the system of four hikjê as residual, DaMatta did not do the same with

the hypothesis of a possible Apinaje matrimonial system between exogamic

moieties. On the contrary, DaMatta argued that the two pairs of moieties

found among the Apinaje, play no role in the definition of a possible matri-

monial system (DaMatta, 1976a:103).

Since the 1990’s, the anthropologist (“jêologist”) Vanessa R. Lea (1995) has

been presenting the thesis that formal friendship among Jê people plays the

role of an “otherness paradigm,” as she correctly maintained (Lea 1999), in-

spired by Manuela Carneiro da Cunha’s affirmation that the essence of formal

friendship is being the Other (Carneiro da Cunha, 1978:84).

Without falling into the “byzantine” (Viveiros de Castro, 1995:9) and con-

troversial theoretical debate on prescription versus preference, I would like

to present some information that demonstrates that Lea’s hypothesis (1995)

about the relation between formal friendship and an alliance system among

the Mbengôkré (Kayapó), is also applicable to the Apinaje case.

The mode of transmission and relationship among Apinaje formal friends

Lopes da Silva (1986:191) affirms that there are two variables to the transmis-

sion rule of formal friendship among the northern Jê people: one by nomina-

tion, the other by patrilineage. The Eastern Timbira are inserted in the first

case, according to Lopes da Silva, with formal friendship being a relation-

ship formed through the use of personal names. The users of certain names

have, as well, a group of formal friends. This group is inherited by the new

users of the names when they are transmitted. This variable that we could

accept as a classical model of the northern Jê, can be clearly applied to the

Krahô and Krı~kati case. However, among the Pyhcopkatiji (Gavião) and the

Ràmkôkame~kra-Canela, the transmission of formal friendship is indirectly

connected to nomination. One of the ways to establish formal friendship is

406


through nominator relations. Another way is during ritual moments, such as

river baths when one is in reclusion.4

Among Mebêngôkre (Kayapó), formal friends are inherited in a patrilin-

ear way as fathers and sons share the same formal friends (Lea 1995).

Among the Suyá, Seeger’s data (1981), even if it is not conclusive, indi-

cates formal friendship only between male partners. It is, in fact, an inher-

ited friendship since the sons and daughters of a man’s formal friend will

be formal friends of the man’s sons and daughters. The Ego male will have

as formal friends the formal friend of his father, the sisters of this man, and

his sons and daughters (Seeger, 1981:142-143). The term used by Ego and his

4 This subject, however, requires more study because the ethnographic data is not sufficient to provide a clear view of this theme for Ràmkôkamekra, Apãnyekra and Pyhcopcatiji.

Diagram 1Suya´s formal friendship terminology(from Seeger, 1981)

ñumbre krà chi

ñumbre krà chi

kràm-nged

kràm-nged

kràm-nged

consanguineous relationshhip (parents and childs)

formal friends relationship

: All the hachured positions (hachureinsert by me in Seeger´s diagram)are Ego´s formal friends.

Note

Ego

ñumbre krà chi

Ego

407


formal male friends is auto-reciprocal: ñumbre krá chi (see diagram 1). On

the other hand, between Ego and his formal female friend, the reciprocal

terms are kràm gêd and ñumbre krá chi. As we will see below, this model

joins the Suyá case to the Apinaje system, because in both a group of formal

friends is transmitted.

Formal friendship among the Apinaje is similar to that among other

northern Jê people concerning its functions and role and the mystical charac-

ter of the kràmgêx / pahkràm relationship, which can involve solidarity and

avoidance relationships. However, the form of transmission of formal friend-

ship has its own characteristics. It is connected to the nomination system,

but not to names. This specificity of the form of transmission also leads to

particular sociologic results.5

The Apinaje nomination system involves three to four people. There is the

person that receives the name (the named), the person that arranges the name

(the name arranger6); the person that in fact transmits the name (I’ll call him

the nominator) and the person who has the transmitted name (the eponym).

Usually, the nominator is also the eponym, since he is the person who must

be the gêt (MB, MF, FF and all the men from the second ascendant generation)

or tyj (FZ, FM, MM and all the women from the second ascendant generation)

of the named. However, it is possible that the eponym had already died or was

away during the nomination ceremony. In this case, the name arranger looks

for someone who has the same group of names, to confirm the same ones. If

there is no other namesake, it is possible to ask someone who knows the list of

names of the group to make the confirmation. In these two cases of eponym

substitution, the name arranger has to reward the substitute for the “service.”

A child receives, either immediately at birth or sometime after birth

(ranging from a few days to a few months), a group of names that is given to

him by a name arranger,7 and that needs to be confirmed in a ceremony. This

5 Thus, my interpretation partially confirms the Maybury-Lewis’ insight (1960:212) that there would be a connection between formal friendship and a marriage system between exogamic moieties, as I have argued earlier (Giraldin, 2000:xi-xiii).

6 The term “names arranger” does not really apply to the role of this person. The fact of arranging names for someone also implies that the arranger will have social responsibilities towards the nominee for both of their entire lives. However, I use this term because it is already established in Apinaje literature.

7 A child can have more than one person “arranging” names for it. The “quantity” of name arrangers depends on the initiative of brothers and sisters (consanguineous or classificatory) of its consanguineous parents.

408


name arranger usually announces one of the names from a certain group that

he wants to transmit to the named. During the nomination ceremony, the

nominator (who must also be the eponym) will announce which names from

the group he will transmit to the named, thus confirming them. This name

arranger is always a person who is in his pãm (FB), nã (MZ), gêt (MB, FF, MF),

or tyj (FZ, FM, MM) category. Even though the name arranger could belong to

the nã, pãm, gêt or tyj categories (consanguineous or classificatory) of the

person who is going to receive the name, there is a predominance of MZ (nã)

and FB (pãm), as name arrangers. The nominator and eponym must be some-

one who is in the gêt or tyj category of the person who receives the name.

The named person will always be someone who is in the tãmxwy category

(SCh, DCh, ZCh, BChCh...) in relation to the nominator and the eponym.

Nimuendajú’s and DaMatta’s data about Apinaje Formal Friendship

To understand how formal friendship expresses this otherness language and

how this Apinaje matrimonial system is organized, it is necessary to under-

stand the transmission. To do so we will first see how the transmission of for-

mal friendship was presented by Nimuendajú and DaMatta. For Nimuendajú,

the transmission of formal friendship occurred through the initiative of a

child’s father or grandfather. When a child reaches the age of five, the parents

or grandparents can choose8 one man and one woman who seem to be kind

(Nimuendajú doesn’t explain the choice), to enter into a relation of kràmgêx/

pahkràm with the child. Nimuendajú reports, however, that the invitation

of the parents or grandparents is made by asking two people to make decora-

tions to be given to their kra pyràk (named children).

When presenting the transmission rule of formal friendship, DaMatta, in a

text published in 1976, says that the child’s kràmgêx9:

Is always, (...), a pá-krã of one of its pam or nã-kaog, in such a way that the

boy or girl winds up belonging to the same ceremonial group as its father and

8 Nimuendajú ([1939] 1983) doesn’t explain if there was a preference for one of them.

9 DaMatta used three terms to refer to Apinaje's formal friendship: for formal male friends, he wrote krã-geti and pá-krã; for female formal friends, he used krã-gedy and pá-krã. In the following pages, I only use two terms: kràmgêx and pahkràm.

409


ceremonial or adoptive mother, the one who - on the other hand - passed the

marks of its ceremonial moieties to an adoptive son or daughter of one of he

krã-geti (DaMatta, 1976: 160).

In The Divided World, the rule that DaMatta express for the transmission

of formal friendship is different form the one presented before.10 Based on

Diagram 2 (below), he says that, “the krã-geti of the male child will be the

krã-geti's son of his adoptive father. And in the feminine case, the krã-gedy

will be the krã-gedy’s daughter, her adoptive mother” (DaMatta, 1976a: 139

emphasis mine).

As we can see, there is a difference between the two statements. In the

first one (from the 1976 text), an Ego will have as pahkràm a kràmgêx of

one of his pãm or nã-kaàk. In the second (1976a), a male Ego will have as

kràmgêx a son of the kràmgêx of the adoptive father (or name arranger). On

the other hand, a female Ego will have as kràmgêx the kràmgêx’s daughter

of her adoptive mother (or name arranger). DaMatta, however, doesn’t specify

if this kràmgêx’s son or kràmgêx’s daughter, are consanguine or classifica-

tory. We will see further on that this difference between consanguine and

classificatory children has important sociologic significations.

10 These problems with ethnographic data linked to the transmission of formal friendship were also shown by Lea (1995).

Diagram 2Apinaje formal friendship transmissionby DaMatta (1976a: 140)

pá-krã

Ipôgnotxóine

krã-geti

The broked lines presents relations amongnamed and name arranger.The double pointed line show formal friendshiprelations.

Krénotxóine

410


In a later text DaMatta (1979), makes the same affirmation as he did in the

article published in 1976, and not that made in The Divided World.11 To sup-

port his argument, he presented a diagram (diagram 3 above) that was quite

different from the one presented earlier. In it, it is noticeable that there are

moiety exchanges in a way that Ego would have his name arranger’s formal

friend as his own formal friend (a pahkràm), to whom (the pahkràm) the

name’s arranger would have handed over the decorations.

In any case, his argument is that formal friendship establishes two con-

tinuing lines of formal friendship in the system of a member’s inclusion in

one of the Apinaje moieties pair.12 Therefore, DaMatta did not convincingly

clarify how the kràmgêx is chosen. After all, according to DaMatta, an Ego

can have more than one kràmgêx, and each one could even be from any one

of the moieties. In addition, a male Ego can have formal female friends, but

DaMatta doesn’t provide any information about how these choices can be

11 Trindade-Serra complicates even more the question. “The chosen senior friend, or krã-geti (reciprocal = pá-krã), will always have to be the subjects adoptive father’s krã-geti (in the case of a female Ego, the krã-gedy will be the krã-gedy’s daughter of his adoptive mother)” (Trindade-Serra, 1978:230 [my emphasis]). Trindade-Serra presents different rules for male and female Egos. For the first, the kràmgêx would be the same as his adoptive father. For a female Ego, it would be the daughter of kràmgêx of his adoptive mother.

12 The moieties that he names as Krenotxuine (in my writing: Ixkrénhõxwynh) and Ipôgnotxuine (Hipôknhõxwynh). The filiation to the other Apinaje’s moieties´pair, (Koti / Kore) is established through onomastics.

Diagram 3Apinaje formal friendship transmissionby DaMatta (1979:111)

Permino(Ipog)

Chiquinho(Ipog)

Kangro Sotero(Ipog)

Dionisio(Ipog)

The broked lines presents relations amongnamed and name arranger.The line with arrow point to formal friendshiprelations.

411


made and which terms would be used in this case.13

While Nimuendajú says that the choice was made by sympathy, DaMatta

says that the rule for formal friendship transmission is that a female Ego

would have a formal friend (kràmgêx) who is a daughter of her name arrang-

er’s formal friend, while a male Ego would have as a formal friend (kràmgêx)

a son of his name arranger’s formal friend. This way, there would be male and

female transmission lines, which would have misled Nimuendajú to interpret

an affiliation according to exogamic groups (hikjê) and the existence of a par-

allel transmission.

From information that I gathered, formal friendship is not transmitted

by providing decorations, as DaMatta affirms, and is not used for affiliation

to a second pair of moieties. Formal friendship is established by the name ar-

ranger independently from handing over the decorations. The handing over

of the decorations as argued elsewhere (Giraldin, 2000: 187), is a ritualization

of the creation myth, when Myyti and Mywryre acted in the transforma-

tion of the world. This ritual is also used to establish a matrimonial alliance,

through an ideal (and primordial) matrimonial alliance between the moieties

Koti and Kore. This primordial alliance leads the current Apinaje, especially

the elders, to have an ideology of ideal marriage between members of the two

moieties. As we will see further on, this ideology is followed with statistical

data about marriages between consanguineous children of formal friends.

A name arranger has many groups of formal friends. Each of his groups

of formal friends is composed of a senior formal friend and a group of se-

nior formal friends, and a group of junior formal friends. These junior for-

mal friends of Ego’s name arranger are the people who are in the position of

named children (classificatory) of the name arranger’s senior formal friend.

Senior and junior formal friends are named kràmgêx (reciprocal, pahkràm).

Thus, Ego’s formal friends (kràmgêx) (male or female) will all be the for-

mal friends (and their named children) of their name arrangers. I use the plu-

ral because this is how it happens. Even if Ego has only one name arranger,

he will have a group of people who will be his formal friends (kràmgêx). This

group will be composed by all the people who will be in a position of named

children (kra pyràk) in relation to the senior kràmgêx or junior kràmgêx,14

13 A problem raised by Lea (1995).

14 This distinction between senior and junior formal friends is not made by the Apinaje. I make it to

412


Diagram 4, presented below, aims to facilitate the understanding of the

transmission process of formal friendship and its implications in a mat-

rimonial system. The kràmgêx (A) who appears at the top of the diagram

(hatched) is a junior formal friend for pahkràm (1) and is a senior formal

friend for pahkràm (2). On the other hand, his named children (group of

people (B), for whom the kràmgêx (A) arranged the names, are junior formal

friends (junior kràmgêx ) of (2). When the man pahkràm (1) asks his junior

formal friend (A) to hand over the decorations to his named daughter (2) (in

other words, for whom (1) arranged names), (A) will be accompanied by all

of his named children (B). These will become junior formal friends of the

provide a better understanding of the system.

Diagram 4Apinaje´s formal friendship rule transmission

kràmgêxjúnior to (1) esenior to (2)

( )A

consanguineous children

consanguineous children

consanguineos children( ) kràmgêxjuniores by (4)D

(C ) kràmgêx juniores by (3)

kràmgêxsenior by (3)

( ) kràmgêx juniores to (2)B

pahkràm (1)

pahkràm (2)

pahkràm (3)

Ego

pahkràm (4)

Kràmgêxsenior by (4)

name provider / named children relationship

consanguineous relationship (parents e children)


: every one positions inside the ballom points the juniores formal friends group.The juniores formal friends may be not confuse with pahkrám.Note too that the pahkràm in positions (1), (2) e (4), are in this conditions inrelations to (A); (A) and B; and woman by C and D but not to Ego. This one is pahkràmfor the woman from B and for C members.

Note

respectivelygroup group group

group group

413


woman (2). When the woman (2) needs the services of a formal friend for one

of her named children (such as for digging graves, transferring the deceased

to the cemetery; giving the baths on the seventh day after burial or handing

over decorations) she will call on one of her junior formal friends (B). This

formal friend, in return, will perform the requested task or ask one of his

named children (C) to do it.

During the handing over of decorations to (3), this junior formal friend

(hatched area of group B) of pahkràm (2) woman becomes a senior formal

friend of the man pahkràm (3), at the same time as her named children (C)

becomes his junior formal friend. Finally, pahkràm (3) will have the persons

who belong to group (C) as formal friends, those who will become the junior

formal friends, and a member of the group of persons of (B), who will be the

senior formal friend. When the man (pahkràm (3)) will have a named son (4)

(for whom her (3) arranged names), he will call one of his junior kràmgêx (C)

to become kràmgêx of his kra pyràk (named son). The transmission cycle is

thus infinite.

An important point that needs to be highlighted is that the calculation

used to establish formal friendship happens between persons that are con-

nected through the nomination system and not by consanguineous bonds.

Another point that needs highlighting is that the consanguineous children

don’t take part in the transmission of formal friendship together with their

parents. This absence of consanguineous children in the transmission of for-

mal friendship is related, according to my interpretation, to the ideal matri-

monial system created with that relation, as we will see further on.

The Apinaje's formal friendship in the basis of marriage calculation

As I said previously, there is an ideology as well as statistical data that indi-

cate a matrimonial system through preferential partners. We can speak of a

system of alliance among Apinaje people as being ideally socio-centered, but

empirically realized in an ego-centered way. This characteristic gives this sys-

tem a prescriptive form as well as a performative one. I am inspired by the

concepts of Sahlins’ prescriptive and performative structures. He says that

in a social form of prescriptive structure social actions (and relations) are de-

fined by pre-existing relations. In a social form of performative structure, the

414


actions create the adequate social relations, as in the exchange of presents (a

social action) to create social relations (friendship) (Sahlins [1985]1990:12; 47).

The alliance among Apinaje, to my understanding, has features that

aim at a “prescriptive structure” as well as at a “performative structure.” In a

certain sense, it has “prescriptive elements”, since there is the preexistence

of a relation between groups (the moieties Koti and Kore). But, this relation

needs to be constantly updated, since it occurs through the decorations pre-

sentation ritual by the formal friend. This way, the performative actions of

the agents are those that create the adequate social relation between formal

friends in this process of updating the primordial alliance among Myyti

(Sun) and Mywryre (Moon)’s children. This allows the consanguineous chil-

dren as well as the nominated ones to have ideal partners for a matrimonial

relationship. The alliance established in this way between two people occurs

for two generations, that were previously considered to be needing renewal.

There are renewals for new generations that are established through the

transmission of formal friends.15

The Apinaje social philosophy, based on a principle of hierarchical dual-

ism, indicates that marriage should ideally occur among Koti and Kore, as

defined by Myyti and Mywryre. But, since the moieties Koti and Kore don’t

form groups that perform as such, the alliance between them is thus symbol-

ized through the formal friendship relation.

This relation doesn’t even form groups, since the formal friendship

doesn’t create descendant groups. The alliances are thus ego-centered. So

each person revives the ideally socio-centered alliance through new social

relations of formal friendship. According to individual interests, a man or

a woman can thus use their formal friendship to widen their relationships

through matrimonial arrangements made with their children.

In a conversation with Katàm Kaàk– Amnhimy (Grossinho), one of

DaMatta’s principal informers, he discussed marriage and formal friendship.

Grossinho told me that DaMatta had studied the issue and he mentioned an

experience the anthropologist had when he called a girl iprõ-ti and how she

became scared and began to cry. According to DaMatta, this term, “far from

indicating a symptomatic terminology of matrimonial prescription (as I

15 There are indications of a possible extension of the alliances for three generations (reaching formal friends' grandchildren).

415


initially thought), is used to mark a separation of these positions (DaMatta,

1976a:141). For him, the term iprõ-ti, applied to the girl signified that a man

is going to use violence against her.

Grossinho’s information shows that in fact kràmgêx cannot marry pah-

kràm. But it is possible to have a marriage between kràmgêx and pahkràm's

consanguineous children. The reciprocal is also true, pahkràm can marry

kràmgêx's consanguineous children.

In Diagram 4 of the formal friendship transmission model (presented

above), it is possible to verify that consanguineous children didn’t take part

in the transmission of their parents’ formal friendships. In other words,

when handing over the decorations or realizing ceremonial activities, the

senior kràmgêx is accompanied only by his named children (kra pyràk).

This way, formal friendship transforms senior kràmgêx’s named children

into pahkràm's junior kràmgêx, prohibiting sexual intercourse among

them since they are formal friends. However, formal friendship makes this

possible between kràmgêx (senior and junior) and pahkràm's consanguin-

eous children, and between consanguineous children of all formal friends

(whether they are senior or junior kràmgêx) and pahkràm's consanguine-

ous children.

For this reason, I affirmed that this type of alliance happens not between

groups, but between two persons, presenting marriage possibilities for two

generations: for the senior kràmgêx's consanguineous children, for ju-

nior kràmgêx (who are the named children of senior kràmgêx), for junior

kràmgêx's consanguineous children, and finally, for pahkràm's consan-

guineous children. This is also why it is necessary to be always establishing

new formal friendship. This ideology is found among Apinaje, who affirm

that it is necessary to be always renewing, expanding, and moving preexis-

tent relations forward. Because it’s a relation between only two generations, it

is necessary to renew them periodically.

A marriage can be decided by individual initiative where the partners

choose freely his or her spouse (as mentioned by DaMatta [1976a:137]). When

there are arrangements, they are made through the actions of the name ar-

ranger (male or female). In this case, the main basis for the calculation of the

arrangements is formal friendship.

We can see in Diagrams 5 (A-F) presented above that in some cases the

terms of affinity are better understood when they are connected to the

416


Diagram 5Apinaje´s affinity terminologyand formal friends relationship

Diagram 5 B

ixprõti

kràmgêx

kra

Diagram 5 A

ixprõrekanêremoire

kanêremoire

Ego

pahkràm=

=

kràmgêx

Diagram 5 D

Diagram 5 E Diagram 5 F

kanêremoire

Ego

pahkràm=

=

Diagram 5 C

kràmgêx

tõx tõ

tõtõx

kanêti

kanêti


Ego

pahkràm=

=

kràmgêx

kanêremoire Ego

pahkràm=

=

kràmgêx


Ego

pahkràm=

=

kràmgêx

kra

Ego

pahkràm=

=

ixbijênre

ixbijênti

ixbijênre

ixbijênre

consanguineous relations (parents and children)


Glosskràmgêx = formal friend (reciprocal =pahkràm)ixprõ = my[ix] wife [prõ](ti = augmentative; re = diminutive)ixbijên = my[ix] husband [bjiên]

kanê = synonym to father-in-law and brother-in-lawmoire = (moi = thing)tõ = brothertõx = sisterkra = children

(ti = augmentative; re = diminutive)

synonym for brother-in-law

417


terminology adopted for formal friendship. This relation also helps under-

stand that there is an ideal exchange between moieties16 Koti and Kore.

In Diagrams 5A and 5C, we see that a man refers to the consanguineous

children of his formal friend (kràmgêx or pahkràm) with the same terms

used for his own consanguineous son. The same is true of the woman (ac-

cording to diagram 5B and 5F) who refers to the consanguineous children of

her formal friend (kràmgêx or pahkràm) with the same terms she uses for

her consanguineous daughter.

This terminology used between kràmgêx and pahkràm's consanguine-

ous children (or vice-versa) can change according to gender. When they are

the same gender, the kràmgêx will call kanêre17 or moire18 his pahkràm’s

consanguineous son, as can be seen in diagram 5A.

The pahkràm's consanguineous son will call kanêti his father or moth-

er’s kràmgêx, as can be seen in diagram 5E. The same occurs between two

females. Since they are the same gender, the term used is always one related

to avoidance. But, when there is a difference in gender, the terminology

changes.

The kràmgêx will call his pahkràm’s consanguineous daughter with

the term ixprõre (literally “little wife”), as seen in diagram 5 A, and he will

be called ixbjênti by her (literally “big husband”), as seen in diagram 5F.

The terminology between kràmgêx’s consanguineous sons and pahkràm's

consanguineous sons is also very interesting. Kràmgêx and pahkràm's

16 According to Nimuendajú, there are, among the Canela, two moieties, kq'ikateyê (east) and harã kateyê (west) that are (or were) exogamic. These moieties, according to him, are not associated to sun and moon, and do not have any distinctive characteristic. These moieties only have an exogamic role. According to him, “although a third of contemporary marriages are in the same moieties” [while two-thirds follow the rule, which is the significant majority] “ and the youngest generation partly refuses the reality of the exogamic rule, elders depreciate this shameless attitude and the preponderance of exogamic unions among them proves that the principle survived until not too long ago” (Nimuendajú,1946:79). For Nimuendajú, the comparison with the organization of other tribes suggests that the functions now given for the patio moieties and rainy seasons were initially associated with exogamic moieties.

17 The term kanê is used to refer to a specific element that is used as a counter-element. To fight a disease, the Apinaje use a medication that is a counter-element to the one that provokes the disease. So, for the armadillo's disease, they use the armadillo-kanê. This is a plant that looks like the armadillo. When someone casts a spell in the village, threatening the people (the panhı~), those in charge of eliminating it (known as killing the spell) are the killers (panhı~-kanê). So, kanê can be considered as an alterity manifestation, of the opposite. Nhı~nôpo and Nhı~nôkàre, two Apinaje characters connected to the legend of an ancestral village called each other kanê-re because their mothers were formal friends.

18 The term moire (moi = thing), is also used to refer to a brother-in-law (WB ou HB).

418


consanguineous sons call each other, kanêré or moiré, as seen in diagrams

5 C, 5 D, 5 E, 5 F. But when there is a difference in gender, the terminology

changes. A man will call ixprõre the consanguineous daughter of his father

or mother's kràmgêx or pahkràm and will be called ixbjênre by her, as seen

in diagrams 5 C, 5 E. The same applies for a female Ego. A woman will call ix-

bjênre the consanguineous son of her father’s or mother’s kràmgêx or pah-

kràm and will be called ixprõre by him, as shown in diagrams 5 D, 5 F.

To summarize: the diagrams and terminologies presented show equiva-

lences between a man and his consanguineous son, since both call the fa-

ther's pahkràm's consanguineous son kanêré; and are called by him with

the same term: kanêti (for the kràmgêx) and kanêre (for the kràmgêx's

consanguineous son). The same terminology is used by a man and his con-

sanguineous son when referring to the father’s pahkràm's consanguineous

daughter. Both call this woman ixprõre. The reciprocal is also true: both are

called ixbjên (ti, for kràmgêx; and re, for his son) by the woman. There

is also equivalence between a woman and her consanguineous daughter, as

both call the mother’s pahkràm's (or kràmgêx) consanguineous daughter

kanêre and are called kanê (re or ti) by her. In the same way, they call the

mother's pahkràm's or kràmgêx's consanguineous son ibjênre and are

called respectively ixprõti and ixprõre by him. The following diagrams show some examples that clarify the relation

between marriage and formal friendship. It is not an exhaustive demonstra-

tion of all concrete matrimonial consummation, but presents some cases that

demonstrate that formal friendship is an element that influences matrimo-

nial arrangements.

Among marriages between the family of the couple Amnhimy–Katàm

Kaàk’s (Grossinho) and Pãxti (Rosa)19, who lived in the village of Patizal (in

1997), for 85% of them we notice a relation of formal friendship among the

parents of the spouses. Some examples can be seen in the diagrams.

In diagram 6 there is a case of a brother’s exchange, as Moxy (Juraci),

19 Only in the cases of the marriages of Amnhimy (Grossinho) and Pãxti (Rosa), as well as in the one of Irepxi (Tete [Amnhimy {Grossinho} and Pãxti {Rosa]}’s consanguineous daughter) and Kagàpxi (Marabá) and the one of Gurôt (Araci [Amnhimy {Grossinho} and Pãxti {Rosa}’s consanguineous daughter) and Rõrky (Roberto [Gôtum [Camilo]'s consanguineous’ son) it was not possible to detect any relation of formal friendship.

419


Meôkà (Pedro) and Pp krãkaı~ (Juvenal), three Amnhimy (Grossinho) and Pãxti

(Rosa)'s consaguineous children, respectively married, Teprãre (Jorge), Grerti

(Celina), and Apamy, three consanguineous children of Tepjêt (Vicente) and

Grerô (Eva). Tepjêt (Vicente) is Amnhimy (Grossinho)’s pahkràm. So that,

kràmgêx's children married with pahkràm's.

In diagram 7 we can see that two children of the couple Amnhimy

(Grossinho) and Pãxti (Rosa) also married two of Tepjêt (Vicente)’s grandchil-

dren, which demonstrates that the alliance between two people can be extend-

ed to a third generation. Amnhimy (Grossinho) and Pãxti (Rosa)’s consanguin-

eous children, Ire (Rosita) and Kamêr Kaàk (Paulo), married children of Kangro

(Chico) and Amnhi (Edna) who is Tepjêt and Grerô’s consanguineous daughter.

In São Jose, the largest village in Apinaje territory, with an estimated

population of 700 (September 1999), I researched one hundred and eight mar-

riages. I verified that in 71 cases there is a relation of formal friendship be-

tween one of the spouses and one of the parents-in-law. The result is that 68%

of the marriages are or have been in an ideal condition.

Diagram 6Formal friends and marriage relations betweenTepjêt and Amnhimy children

Grerô(Eva)

Grerti(Celina)

Apamy Teprãre(Jorge)

Meôkà(Pedro)

AmnhimyKatàm Kaàk(Grossinho)

Tepjêt(Vicente)

Pãxti(Rosa)

dead



Pep Krãkai(Juvenal)

~ Moxy(Juraci)

`

420


In diagram 8, we can see the marriages of Irepxi’s and Krãkamrêk's chil-

dren. This couple had seven children; five of them are represented in this

diagram. All of them are or have been married to partners with whom their

mother (Irepxi) or father (Krãkamrêk) have relations of formal friendship.

Information about this marriage can be seen from left to right. Sikoi is

married to Krãkamrêk (Valdemar), Tepjêt (Vicente) and Grerô (Eva)’s con-

sanguineous son. Eva was the pahkràm of Krãkamrêk (Augusto), Sikoi’s

father. So, this is a case where the children of formal friends got married.

Kunuka (Abdão), Irepxi’s consanguineous son married Jàt kamrêk (Marlene),

Nhı~nôkênh (Joãozinho)'s consanguineous daughter. Nhı~nôkênh (Joãozinho)

was Irepxi's kràmgêx. Children of formal friends again got married. The case

of the marriages between Kamêr kamrô (Maria Santana), Amnhàk (Rosalina)

and Krãkamrêk (Joaquim), Irepxi's consanguineous children and respec-

tively Grekrw (Jairo), Pãnpãn and Ireti (Darci), all cosanguineous children of

Môxgô (Moisés) (Irepxi's kràmgêx) and Grermàn (Veneranda), is another case

Diagram 7Formal friends and marriage relations betweenTepjêt grandchildren and Amnhimy children

Grerô(Eva)

Amnhi(Edna)

Kagro(Chico)

AmnhimyKatàm Kaàk(Grossinho)

Tepjêt(Vicente)

Pãxti(Rosa)

Ire(Rosita)

Pãxti(Ednalva)

Kamêr Kaàk(Paulo Laranja)

Kamêr

dead



421


of sibling exchange. It is true that from the three marriages, only Pãnpãn and

Amnhàk’s marriage prospered, since they raised two children before separat-

ing. But the formal friends, Irepxi and Môxgô, tried to marry their children

properly and continued to avoid each other, since one doesn’t go to the house

of the other, except on special occasions (such as a funeral).

Conclusion

In a paper about the role of affinity in indigenous societies of South-America

lowerland, Viveiros de Castro argued that Jê formal friendship has a role of

“potential affinity,” since it is an example of “affinity without affines.” This,

according to the author “is limited in a relation that puts together terms

just not connected to marriage” (1993:179). Among the Jê, formal friendship

would be this situation of “affinity without affines,” since there is no matri-

monial connection between formal friends.

In fact, it is possible to agree with Viveiros de Castro’s argument. The

Apinaje’s formal friends, among themselves, constitute the “alterity para-

digm” (Lea, 1999), since they avoid each other, “potential affines”. However,

they are the “carriers of sociality” because they create “permanent affinity.”

Ireti(Darci)

Irepxi (Maria Barbosa) and Krãkamrêk (Augusto) children

Diagram 8Formal friends and marriage relations of

Grermàn(Veneranda)

Amnhàk(Rosalina)

Kamêr Kamrô(Maria Santana)

Grerkrw(Jairo)

Krãkamrêk(Joaquim)

Pãnpãn

Krãkamrêk(Augusto)

Jàt kamrêk(Marlene)

Krã kamrêk(Valdemar)

Nhinôkênh(Joãozinho)

Kunuka(Abdão)

Sikoi(Cleuza)

Môjgô(Moisés)

Irepxi(Maria Barbosa)

Grerô(Eva)

Tepjêt(Vicente)

dead



422


As I affirmed in this paper, the ideal marriage is when a formal friend mar-

ries a child of another formal friend or that formal friend’s consanguineous

children marry each other.

It must be said once more that this “potential affinity” is explicit since

the Apinaje’s socio-genesis (and generally northern Jê) as we have seen, Myyti

(Sun) and Mywryre (Moon) were formal friends. In this condition, they were

carriers of identity as well as alterity. When conceiving their children – re-

spectively members of Koti and Kore's moieties – the condition of equality

allows all Apinaje to see themselves as members of a community; the alter-

ity condition (with “potential affines”) enables the sociability through the

conception of people under a condition of “effective affines” (formal friends´

children). If Myyti (Sun) and Mywryre (Moon) were equals, their “children”

would also have this condition, making impossible the formation of mat-

rimonial relations. This way, we can agree with Lea (1999:11) that formal

Tepkryt(Sabino)

Diagram 9Exemple of invention of affinity cross formal friends.Marriage of Sikoi e Krã kamrêk

Krãkamrêk(Augusto)

Irepxi(Maria Barbosa)

Grerô(Eva)

Kamêr kamrô(Filomena)

Tepjêt(Vicente)

Jàt Kamrêk(Regina)

Krã kamrêk(Valdemar)

Sikoi(Cleuza)

dead



423


friendship permits the erasure of consanguinity traces between individuals,

allowing an affinization. Diagram 9 for example, shows how two cross cous-

ins (positions ideally prohibited inside the system they are called brother and

sister) have been able to marry under the argument that the “parents in law”

(WF and HM) had relations of formal friendship.

For these reasons, I disagree with Viveiros de Castro’s affirmation that a

dualist system (such as the Apinaje’s) is of “little matrimonial significance.”

Similarly, we can notice that the Apinaje matrimonial system occurs under

an ideology of exogamic moieties, without, however, having as “operative

units,” clans or lineage as are found in other Central Brazilian societies (like

the Xerente, Xavante, Bororo) as Viveiros de Castro maintained (1995:12).

The Apinaje function with a dualist ideology of exogamic moieties, in a

cognatic system without the existence of clans or lineage. This system op-

erates empirically through the symbolic creation of these moieties through

relations of formal friendship. This way, with ideal marriages between formal

friends’ consanguineous children, there is an ideal exchange of members be-

tween the two moieties.

Bibliography

carneiro da cunha, Manuela. 1978. Os mortos e os outros. Uma análise do

sistema funerário e da noção de pessoa entre os índios Krahó. São Paulo:

Hucitec.

damatta, Roberto A. 1976. “Uma reconsideração da morfologia social

Apinayé”. In: E. Schaden(org.), Leituras de etnologia brasileira. São Paulo:

Companhia Editora Nacional. pp. 149-163

damatta, Roberto A. 1976a. Um mundo dividido. A estrutura social dos

índios Apinayé. Petrópolis: Vozes.

damatta, Roberto A. 1979. “The apinayé relationship system: terminology and

ideology”. In: D. Maybury Lewis (ed.), Dialectical societies. The Gê and

Bororo of Central Brazil. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University

Press. pp 83-129

giraldin, Odair. 2000. Axpên Pyràk. História, cosmologia, onomástica e

amizade formal apinaje. Tese de doutorado, IFCH/Unicamp, Campinas.

héritier, Françoise. 1989. “Parentesco”. In: Enciclopédia Einaudi. Vol. 20,

“Parentesco”. Lisboa: Imprensa Nacional/Casa da Moeda. pp. 27-80

424


lea, Vanessa. 1995. “Casa-se do outro lado: um modelo simulado da aliança

Mẽbengokre (Jê)”. In: E. Viveiros de Castro (org.), Antropologia do

parentesco. Estudos ameríndios. Rio de Janeiro: Editora da Universidade

Federal do Rio de Janeiro. pp. 321-359.

lea, Vanessa. 1999. “Os amigos formais mẽbengokre: paradigma de alteridade e

portadores de socialidade”. Paper destinado ao XXIII Encontro Anual da

ANPOCS.

lévi-strauss, Claude. 1982 [1949]. As estruturas elementares do parentesco. 2a

ed. Petrópolis: Vozes.

lévi-strauss, Claude. 1991 [1984] Minhas palavras. 2a ed. São Paulo:

Brasiliense.

lopes da silva, Aracy. 1986. Nomes e amigos: da prática xavante a uma

reflexão sobre os Jê. São Paulo: FFLCH/USP.

maybury-lewis, David 1960. “Parallel descent and the apinayé anomaly”.

Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 6(2): 191-216

nimuendajú, Curt. 1939. The Apinayé. Washington: The Catholic University

of America Press.

nimuendajú, Curt. 1946. The Eastern Timbira. Berkeley and Los Angeles.

University of California Press.

nimuendajú, Curt. 1983 [1939]. Os Apinayé. Belém: Museu Paraense Emílio

Goeldi.

sahlins, Marshall. 1990 [1985]. Ilhas de história. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar

Editor.

seeger, Anthony. 1981. Nature and society in Central Brazil. The Suyá indians

of Mato Grosso. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

trindade-serra, Ordep José. 1978. “Dualismo e harmonia: a propósito do caso

Apinayé”. Anuário Antropológico, 77: 225-243.

viveiros de castro, Eduardo. 1993. “Alguns aspectos do dravidianato

amazônico”. In: E. Viveiros de Castro & M. M. Carneiro da Cunha (orgs.),

Amazônia: etnologia e história indígena. São Paulo: Núcleo de História

Indígena e do Indigenismo da USP/ FAPESP. pp 149-210

viveiros de castro, Eduardo. 1995. “Pensando o parentesco ameríndio”.

In: E. Viveiros de Castro (org.), Antropologia do parentesco. Estudos

ameríndios. Rio de Janeiro: Editora da Universidade Federal do Rio de

Janeiro. pp. 7-24.

425


About the author

Odair Giraldin, ([email protected]) master in Anthropology and doctor

in Social Science at Unicamp, associate professor at Federal University at

Tocantins. Published: Cayapó e Panará. Luta e Sobrevivência de um Povo Jê no

Brasil Central. Campins, Ed. Unicamp, 1997 and A (Trans)Formação Histórica do

Tocantins. 2a. ed. Goiânia, Ed. UFG, 2004.

Address: Rua Aureliano de Azevedo, 2476-A. Praça das Mães. Porto Nacional –

TO. CEP 77500-000. Fones: (63) 33632675 – cel. (63) 9202-8090 ou 84540785.

Received 14/04/11, approved 02/08/11

426

Creating Affinity - Vibrant · used for creating affinity in social relationships, overlapping, in...

Documents

Transcript of Creating Affinity - Vibrant · used for creating affinity in social relationships, overlapping, in...